All of a sudden one discovers patterns that have previously been invisible, because the perceived problem and the words used are new and detached from previous ideologies. New words are used, and the underlying ideological currents behind them go unnoticed. One has a wish that everything will be new and that this time things will be different.

After World War Two the nations of the world decided that there would be no more war. The war had created international legal issues, large groups of people had been displaced from their homelands, and solving the refugee crisis was the most pressing task for the newly-founded United Nations. The brutal toll that the war had exacted on the civilian populations led to the creation of the UN’s Declaration of Human Rights in 1948. The International Convention on Refugees first saw light in 1951, and its purpose was to ensure equal treatment for all refugees. It also placed legal obligations on the host nations to properly consider each asylum application. Additionally, it required that the host nations refrain from repatriating refugees in those cases where there was a real risk of persecution.

Ideas such as international cooperation and globalization arose as a direct result of the International Declaration of Human Rights. The idea of a United States of Europe attracted support from a new generation of politicians and visionaries. The influence of the UN kept increasing, and so did the support for globalization. A big international treaty of co-operation eventually saw the light of day.

But in the 1960s and ‘70s, long after the refugee problems of World War Two had been resolved, something happened in the West. The labor migration from the East began. This immigration came as a surprise to the Western nations, although it wasn’t necessarily unwelcome. Manpower was needed. The old colonial powers welcomed huge numbers of citizens from their former colonies. But the scale of this immigration was relatively modest, and assimilation went fairly smoothly. No one had heard of Islamic extremism. Suicide bombings were an unknown phenomenon. It was something that the Japanese kamikaze pilots had engaged in during the war, and the stories of their exploits had spread fear throughout the West at the time.

There was an explosive increase in this immigration during the mid-’80s, and it presented unprecedented challenges for the Western host nations. Every asylum-seeker who arrived was able to tell of horrific atrocities committed against him. The UN convention on refugees was once again thrust into the media spotlight, but now it had to deal with a completely different category of individual, namely voluntary “refugees.” All of a sudden large numbers of asylum-seekers with no known identity started to show up, and, because their identities couldn’t be established, they couldn’t be repatriated. Approximately 85% of asylum seekers arriving from non-Western countries in Norway today have no identification papers.

On October 3, 1987, the People’s Movement Against Immigration was established, with Arne Myrdal as its founding leader. This eventually led to the first major conflicts over immigration policies. Arne Myrdal was also among the individuals arrested in January 1989 for plotting to blow up an asylum centre at Tromøy. For this he was sentenced to 1½ years in prison. Later on there were numerous other confrontations, including the so-called ‘battle of Fevik’.

But in the 1990s something happened with our political elite. After having had a fairly objective and sober view of asylum immigration, and after having a drawn a relatively strict line on immigration, policy abruptly took on ideological undertones. New, positively-charged words were suddenly introduced. The first person to use such words was then-Prime Minister Gro Harlem Brundtland, who introduced the phrase “the colorful community.”

A number of new perspectives with political undertones began to appear in the national immigration debate. A new society was to be constructed, a society in which tensions between the different classes, ethnicities and religions were supposed to be abolished. It was claimed that this immigration was an expression of globalism, which everyone embraced, and that it was an expression of trade and the dismantling of social and economic barriers between countries and people. It was also claimed that it was a sign of international solidarity. And besides, the people in question (asylum-seekers) were often people that had escaped from wars and persecution. Those who opposed this new agenda were denounced and labelled fascists and racists. Most people were reluctant to oppose something so noble. One started to see the emergence of the utopian society.

And now, in my personal opinion, something ideologically very interesting has taken place: the immigration premises are monopolized by the socialists, the Left and the cultural elite. The conservatives are slowly dithering along. Although new words are used today, we can now see the dialectics from the former class struggle being subconsciously used in a novel way. Today the fight is not directed against capitalists and the ruling class, but against another “ruling class”, those Norwegians who refuse to give up their traditional Norwegian ethnic preference! In this new classless society preferences such as ethnicity, religion and culture are not allowed to create artificial barriers between Norwegians and their new “compatriots”! In the politically correct public discourse it’s not “allowed” to refer to ethnicity when categorizing individuals.

And now we can clearly see the characteristics of the new authoritarian ideology, the links to the former revolutionary movements. In order for the project to succeed it’s essential to create a new person. In order to achieve this new inclusive tolerant society, it is essential that Norwegians change; they must be open to this new multicultural society. That which might obstruct new understanding must be relativized. As a result attacks on “Norwegian” culture and identity become very important. It’s claimed that a distinctly defined Norwegian culture does not exist; everything is a result of outside influence. Another point is that it’s hard to find a defined Norwegian culture, built on Western European cultural ideas, when we know that the Cultural Revolution for the most part has been completed in the Nordic countries, inspired by Anglo-American secular culture and a dehumanization of big capitalism. If we don’t stop this internal deconstruction of our own culture it won’t be necessary for an outside culture to complete the dismantling of our social structures! The fear of our own culture, oikofobi, as Roger Scruton defines it, and the post-colonial guilt syndrome that is still present throughout the West, has to be replaced with traditional Judaeo-Christian heritage.

The asylum ideology has also got a religious dimension. The church can participate in international campaigns for solidarity and peace. The church’s role as a participant in the dialogue is given just as much importance as its role as a keeper of tradition. Through dialogue, a more moderate form of Islam can find its place in Norwegian society. In reality we’re talking about a destabilization of the Protestant Church’s history and religious foundation. And, in all honesty, this doesn’t seem to cause any problems; the Norwegian church was secularized a long time ago and new ideas are more than welcome! Last fall the leader of DNK [The Church of Norway] formulated a new trinity: asylum holiness, climate holiness and sacredness of marriage. What we are now seeing is the dismantling of the old society, and we’re moving down the road towards a new society that no one has ever seen before. The new asylum ideology now has an element with an spiritual and ethical dimension.

Another typical trait that characterizes totalitarian ideologies is the denial of reality. The fact that we now have an ideological, authoritarian asylum regime with religious overtones is evident when the advocates completely close their eyes to the enormous economic and social costs of this policy. When the King and the Prime Minister in their 2012 New Year speeches failed to mention anything about the massive challenges that Norwegian society is facing as a result of the mass influx of asylum seekers, it is incomprehensible, considering that most outside the nomenklatura read, see and hear about these problems every day. The unpleasant reality is covered up and is not talked about; thus the problems do not really exist other than as delusions among the common people. So far the authorities have managed to sweep clear signs of ethnic and religious conflicts under the rug in Norway, problems which in Western Europe, however, are about to destabilize nations such as France, England and Germany. The problems are serious, and they have the ability to transform Norway into a new society divided by class, characterized by religious and group identity. In the future individual security will not be determined by being a citizen of the Norwegian state, but by belonging to a strong ethnic or religious group.

The only thing these two heads of state mentioned in their respective speeches was the Utøya atrocity committed by an ethnic Norwegian. Some people probably wondered if these two were in fact talking about Norway. Their speeches show a strong display of ideological normative force, a strong consensus culture which is sufficiently based in itself. The king and the queen had even visited a Muslim family and found that everything was normal!

This removal from reality can only be explained by the fact that all authoritarian and totalitarian ideologies distort reality. All such ideologies share a deceptive (seductive) character, and by agreeing to achieve a stated goal, they tolerate endless violations of ordinary citizens, none of which presents any ethical problems for them. Those who do not agree are excluded and lose their careers.

After the collapse of communism in Europe, after members of the ’68 Generation abandoned their utopias about armed revolution, we all believed that the notion of the ideal society, the classless society, was history. What we are seeing now is that the era of the great social experiments is back again, but in a modern form, justified by arguments based on human rights and tolerance.

The socialists and the Left will never relinquish their ideas about designing the ideal society, far removed from their original roots, their traditions and their culture, and a lineage that goes back several thousand years. No one knows the cost of this; no one even knows if these projects are feasible. Just as in other failed social experiments, the end could be tragic.

The notions of a multicultural society can in many ways today be recognized in surviving traditions of thought that have strangely resurfaced in the West. Fortunately, people are waking up to dangers. I’m not saying that everybody with a positive attitude towards the multicultural society necessarily has a totalitarian disposition, but it is important to shed some light on the underlying ideological currents and name them. When the authoritarian aspects are more clearly defined, most liberal and conservative politicians will reject the multicultural experiment. For the time being, we are talking about a form of false consciousness that must be exposed, and it is then essential to do this among the ruling class.

28
comments:

We not only should end illegal immigration but greatly reduce legal immigration into the USA. We allow 182,000 legal immigrants a month in our country- this is insane. I also worry about Muslim immigration into the USA and how this could threaten our freedoms. NO TO SHARIA LAW IN ANY FORM!

I have seen multiculturalism in all it's glory.No go areas, home invasions,drive by shootings, middle eastern crime gangs,Asian crime gangs,gang rapes,murders,and the list goes on. And if you raise any objection at all the labelling begins racist, xenophobic, fascist,islamphobic,all this with the possibility of a criminal offence.O the joy of multiculturalism.

As an old man who was born during the last time of global conflict and who was brought up in its immediate aftermath I wish to say this: It could have been so good, that wonderful idea that was and to my mind so rightly conceived.

We, weary of war and so aware of the effort and sacrifices that had been made and contributed by the children of our empiricism, we all hoped for a new dawn. We had a deep and abiding desire to create a new, a different, a reasonable and, yes, a multicultural and harmonious future for all of us.

But, of course, it did not come to pass, it did not eventuate, it soured. What we got instead, in the majority, was cultural parasitism; atavism; a predatory, internecine dependency that would grow without any concept of eventual reciprocity or conjunction; the destructive irresponsibility of free range breeding without any sense of paternal responsibility or obligation and hence its wash-over into the carefully, and malignantly, socially engineered mind-set of our own inadequate's, an engineering orchestrated and applied with deliberate intent.

And, yes, there is more: tribal polygamy and the deleterious genetic and social consequences of consanguinity with its inevitable loss of hybrid vigour; crime and feral predation upon the host culture as a sub-cultural and very rewarding way of life; and, most of all, the killing of children in the name of honour and the sexual predation of those of our female children who simply had no chance of understanding what our misguided hopes would bring upon them.

Forgive me, I did not see it soon enough and even when I did see it I failed you for I lacked the courage to act as I should have.

Freedom of speech is one of the first victims when multiculturalism becomes the dogma. In a society with disparate basic values the freedom to speak your mind openly constitutes a threat and a source of conflicts. In order to subdue the conflicts the government uses the legal system to criminalize certain views and opinions. There can never be freedom of speech and multiculturalism.(I beg you to excuse my unidiomatic “swenglish”.)

Interesting to see the same familiar patterns taking place all over the Western world not just Norway. There appears to be a slowly emerging method in this madness. Subtle and not easily grasped. The effects however are clear.

For the first time in recorded history major indigenous populations, those of European descent, are voluntarily becoming minorities in their own homelands, rather than through war, famine, or disease. No other people on earth have done this.

"There appears to be a slowly emerging method in this madness. Subtle and not easily grasped."

Don't you think that the brotherhood network which has spread all over, and is even financially supported by taxpayers help in every country, has laid the ground and accelerated this madness? Sometimes under recognizable names, at other times under names not so easily recognizable.

Not only have we, the taxpayers, helped spread the brotherhood, but we are also for a large part financing most of the madness by offering every kind of social benefits to its followers, establishing housing, adjusted education, adjusted hospitals, etc.

Oh yes, absolutely you are correct. What I was really trying to get at though is what is it within ourselves and/or our elected leaders that compel us to do such things? We are collectively acting in suicidal ways. It is as if we have surrenderd without ever having given battle.

Anyway, it is a phenomenon I have observed for some time now and I am beginning to get a handle on it. Education is the key to combatting this disease we call multiculturalism.

A multi-cultural society has made America great. The few down sides, are nothing to the good. Some countries love a non-cultural aspect, like Saudi Arabia, and give nothing worth while to the world except oil.

The era of the great social experiments is not back again, it never ended..The tactics have changed, from Stalin to GramsciCommunist dictatorship not only proved too expensive and unsustainable in the long run, and besides the years of socialist indoctrination in all western countries have seen to it that there is no longer necessary cadre to acknowledge let alone resist what is happening. So consent has been succesfully organized among the academically trained, and the rest of the people are still largely unaware of what is happening, and when they wake up it will be too late.Multiculturalism is simply one the tools progressives have used to ´deconstruct´ bourgeois society - exactly as Marx stipulated.

The essential problem with fully eliminating the drive towards a society in which the rulers exercise arbitrary power (rather than being constrained by the rule of law) is that most of those who seek positions of power do so because they want more power over others. So the majority of the ruling elite will always be on the side of any innovation in the political discourse that gives them more latitude to exercise power on a "case by case" basis and relaxes or obviates the principles of uniform application of fixed laws.

Hence all those who are not themselves in power must be united in rejecting every advance of arbitrary exercise of power and insist that all government is to proceed according with fixed rules where such have functioned successfully in the past. Where current standards do not recognize any past application of fixed rules as 'successful', the focus should be on devising a new fixed rule rather than on granting further broad and 'flexible' arbitrary powers.

Above all, where something has been successful without being regulated at all, no regulation (fixed or arbitrary) should ever be introduced.

85% arrive without identity papers! No-one has published the figures for my own country (Australia), but I know it is high.The question I always ask is: why are these people granted citizenship? My attitude is: if you force your way into the country, and we can't find a way to send you back, we may have keep you, but you will never be allowed to become a citizen. Even if you marry a citizen, you will always be officially stateless. And you will never be allowed to sponsor the immigration of your family.

From the article: "After World War Two the nations of the world decided that there would be no more war."

They put the focus on the wrong thing. Better they should have decided that there would be no more totalitarianism. War is not wrong in itself. War, or at least the preparations for war, is needed to deter and defeat totalitarianism whenever and wherever it appears. Totalitarianism can be socialist, communist, Nazi, Muslim, or even environmental - and it is anybody's guess what form it may take in the future.

There is nothing wrong with multiculturalism if all cultures are compatible with the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. However, catering to a supremacist ideology of hate such as Nazism and Islam or Communism is wrong and leads to dissension. What happened in Europe in the 90ies was that they allowed a war against Croatia and Bosnia by the Serbian dictator Slobodan Milosevic happen. Europe allowed concentration camps in which Serbs abused Muslim and Croatian women and men and had watched when 15,000 men and boys were slaughtered in Srebrenica because they were Boshniaks. This guilt was then appeased by letting everybody come to Europe, including immigrants whose cultures are totally in clash with the Western civilization. This policy of appeasement of (mostly) Islam must stop if Europe is to survive as a civilized community of nations.

After their German asylum applications failed they travelled clandestinely in a lorry to Britain in June 1999.

Moves to deport the family from Britain began after it was discovered that the Germans had already repeatedly dealt with their asylum claim. Deported in 2003 from Scotland back to Germany. In 2012 they are awarded a six-figure out of court compensation payout from the British Home Office for being detained unlawfully at the Dungavel Detention Centre in Strathaven, Lanarkshire, details of the payment cannot be revealed for legal reasons.

Wonder if Theresa May (Conservative) Home Secretary and Minister for Women and Equalities singed this off.

I will let Russel speak for himself, but, 0106 AM, I also stumbled across the statement

"A multi-cultural society has made America great"

Personally, I would explain this statement on the base of two totally different definitions of 'multi-cultural', Russel's statement being neutrally describing 'several cultures existing in the same society'

What 'multi-cultural' most of the time is referring to, equals islamic, or is another word for islamic, where the ultimate, if not expressed by the followers, goal is to comply with sharia.

We can never ignore this ultimate goal of islam.

With this ultimate goal mohammedans have succeeded(...), sword and koran in hand, in so many countries, one after the other, over 1 400 years.

Being so successful, why would they want to stop now?

This aspect of 'multi-cultural' we must keep in mind when this word is used.

America has been great because of several, many cultures contributing with the best of these each and every, cultures. Before islam was imported.

It would be useful to identify the key players in the planning to introduce multi-culturalism in western countries so that they can be exposed. (Knut Sjaergaard has identified Gro Harlem Bruntland in Norway as a lead figure.) Where and when did these key players meet and plan these policies? As Fjordmann has pointed out, there are too many similarities for it to be coincidence in the way in which western countries have implemented multiculturalism.

"After the collapse of communism in Europe, after members of the ’68 Generation abandoned their utopias about armed revolution, we all believed that the notion of the ideal society, the classless society, was history. What we are seeing now is that the era of the great social experiments is back again, but in a modern form, justified by arguments based on human rights and tolerance.

The socialists and the Left will never relinquish their ideas about designing the ideal society, far removed from their original roots, their traditions and their culture, and a lineage that goes back several thousand years. No one knows the cost of this; no one even knows if these projects are feasible. Just as in other failed social experiments, the end could be tragic."

1. Communism never collapsed, only the Eastern European communist states collapsed. We still see some kind of communism in Belo-Russia, China (the Party, at least), North Korea, South Africa (ANC-rethoric), Cuba, Venezuela and some other South-American countries and maybe in Russia. However, we also see a great deal still within the Western communities. Just sample any MSM culture section. The young angry left wing students of 1968, who managed to completely dominate over the peaceful majority at the universities have risen through the ranks of society, often with the help of their tight networks. Today, they are of course in their 60s, and they have occupied many of the leading positions of society and try to secure these positions for their younger "brothers and sisters". Most important: there have been an active movement to infiltrate and influence the social democratic parties (tip: google "Entryism"), the Church, the universities and the media. And, as Knut Skjaergard writes: "The conservatives are slowly dithering along."

2. Most "former" communist parties and extreme left leaning journalists softened their profiles after 1991, but did they really change their beliefs - or did they just change their strategy?

3. The ideological cooperation between islamists and communists date back to the 50's, at least, to the war in Algeria and the close relationship between the French "philosopher"/communist ideologue Jean-Paul Sartre and Franz Fanon, born in Martinique active communist party member in France, later active supporter of the Algerian liberation movement, who together further developed the concept of "imperialism" and "anti-imperialism". He was the editor of the FLN newspaper, The Mujahid.

In the 60s and 70s the extreme Left worked actively together with the Palestinian terror groups PLO, PFLP, DFLP and so on, most notably in the hijacking of a German plane that was forced down in Mogadisho, when the hijackers demanded the release of the leading RAF-members Andreas Baader and Ulrike Meinhof. Carlos, "The Jackal", the well-known red terrorist of the 70s and 80s, has later announced his coversion to Islam.

So what is it that "the conservatives are slowly dithering along with"? Isn't it looking more and more like the old game of "Revolution"? Didn't we just mistake the Lefts new self proclaimed interest in "civil rights" for liberalism? Isn't it actually just a clever disguise to fill the West with the Revolutionaries that the Left never managed to rally among western workers? But why make a revolution if the people are against it? I truly believe that it's all about hate, the same kind of hate that made the Nazis annihilate Jews. How could we forget about the hateful diatribes against "the Bourgeoisie"? Today, "the Bourgeoisie" includes those western workers that didn't side with the revolutionaries in the 60s and 70s.

When I read the title, I believed Baron Bodissey wrote about how the Multicultural Society conform to an Asylum for alienated. It would be interesting to explore how our governments believe to be the keeper of the inmates ad keep to bring other inmates inside to help them all. Unfortunately, for us, their asylum is devolving in a lager, because the inmates are too many and too much incompatible. So they are forced to become control freaks to prevent the place from exploding.

There is nothing wrong with multiculturalism if all cultures are compatible with the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. However, catering to a supremacist ideology of hate such as Nazism and Islam or Communism is wrong and leads to dissension. What happened in Europe in the 90ies was that they allowed a war against Croatia and Bosnia by the Serbian dictator Slobodan Milosevic happen. Europe allowed concentration camps in which Serbs abused Muslim and Croatian women and men and had watched when 15,000 men and boys were slaughtered in Srebrenica because they were Boshniaks. This guilt was then appeased by letting everybody come to Europe, including immigrants whose cultures are totally in clash with the Western civilization. This policy of appeasement of (mostly) Islam must stop if Europe is to survive as a civilized community of nations.

islamic thugs were beheading them and trafficking their organs.

islamic thugs have been on jihad against them for centuries.

the war was allowed against non muslims (nato's policy with a turk general...).